NOGOD opposes "My Boss is a Jewish Carpenter"

[Deleted]

And with that, I think this debate should end. It's going in circles.

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

@ Tato: Agreed.

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Remove religion from the equation and look at it again. Does a woman have the right to do what she wants with her own body and whetever is growing in it? Debatable. Maybe, maybe not. Religion has nothing to do with the issue. Is Jesus Christ king of Talossa? This, however...

The two cases aren't parallel in the least. If Talossa becomes a religious state, I'll renounce my citizenship. And I don't hold it against any Christian if they feel the same about abortion being a legally enshrined right. Sometimes you can't live with abominable decisions.

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

Jul 18, 2012 10:55:45 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

And with that, I think this debate should end. It's going in circles.

No, I think it took a different path. I thought this was about the stupid idea of Jesus Christ being King of Talossa.

[Üc R. Tärfâ]

Jul 18, 2012 10:26:50 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

Jul 18, 2012 9:55:38 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

The king didn't equate them on that level. He said they are both extremely controversial cultural topics, and for that reason, should not be in the Organic Law.

In your reasoning some people may consider the fact that someone holds sovereignty that could be passed on to his heirs to be a controversial cultural topic that shouldn't be in the Organic Law because it makes the country unpalatable to some one. But they still live with it.

We're talking apples, oranges, and bananas now. The fact that the nation is a monarchy is a definition of its system of government and something that defines the nation itself. The fact that the Organic Law says we all have to say "it's your right to kill your fetus" is something that exists on a different plane, the plane of human rights. The CeR's "Jewish Carpenter" bill (doomed to fail, and we all smile, so it's not biggie and we're talking a lot for nothing) wouldn't take away or abridge the freedom of worship that is in the OrgLaw.


Again, this is (to a great many people) like being in a nation that says "you have the right to kill your fellow citizens". Sure, I might not ever do that myself, but I really don't like the fact that other people can get away with it freely.

But if I acknowledge that the OrgLaw says that the Christ is "eternal" King of Talossa, I cannot be a citizen of the Kingdom without have Him to be my King. See? It's different...

Sure, everything is different from everything else (hence my apples, oranges, bananas) comments.

But the point is that in one very important way, they're NOT different. They're both things that many people would NOT want to sign on to.

And thus they should both NOT be in the Organic Law of our great nation.

Hool

You edited my post...

[Owen Edwards]

Jul 18, 2012 11:02:25 GMT -6 Ián B. Anglatzarâ said:

Remove religion from the equation and look at it again. Does a woman have the right to do what she wants with her own body and whetever is growing in it? Debatable. Maybe, maybe not. Religion has nothing to do with the issue. Is Jesus Christ king of Talossa? This, however...

The two cases aren't parallel in the least. If Talossa becomes a religious state, I'll renounce my citizenship. And I don't hold it against any Christian if they feel the same about abortion being a legally enshrined right. Sometimes you can't live with abominable decisions.

Well, your comparison of "the right to renounce" demonstrates there is a parallel, but for what it's worth, I really respect the measured tone of this comment.

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

Yeah, abortion kills. Yada, yada.

I thought this was about Jesus. Why won't anyone think about Jesus?!*

*sarcasm

[Hooligan]

And this, my fellow Talossans, is precisely why controversial subjects should not be enshrined in Talossan Organic Law. Q.E.D. :-)

The experiment is very safe, friends. Let's just all lift a glass to our great nation, and let this debate (which won't convince people on either side) fall to the wayside.

Hool

[Sir Tamorán dal Navâ]

Yeah, this doesn't leave me feeling that things are "safe" right now.

[Hooligan]

Jul 18, 2012 11:02:41 GMT -6 Üc R. Tärfâ said:

You edited my post...

Crap. My abject apologies! :-(

Hool

[Ián B. Anglatzarâ]

Jul 18, 2012 11:15:33 GMT -6 Hooligan said:

And this, my fellow Talossans, is precisely why controversial subjects should not be enshrined in Talossan Organic Law.

Controversial subjects are fine. Religious are not.

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2012 11:16:34 GMT -6 Sir Tamorán dal Navâ said:

Yeah, this doesn't leave me feeling that things are "safe" right now.

The reality is that this won't pass and there isn't enough support to regress the reproductive rights of women in this country, so things are pretty safe. The point the king was trying to make was done poorly and seems to stem more from emotion. This is an artificial issue, really. And we shouldn't quit Talossa over artificial issues.

[Sir Tamorán dal Navâ]

That's not the point, Viteu.

[Audrada Rôibeardét]

Changes my perspective on a couple of people.

[Zacríeu Ian Ianescu]

"Section 1 of Article III of Organic Law ("King") be amended to add the following first sentence: The eternal and everlasting King of Talossa is Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."

...what happened to freedom of religion? Saying that an otherwise fictional skydaddy will look over us and everything will be okay, is like saying: "The Easter Bunny will save us!"

Makes absolutely no sense does it?

Besides, when did the post become about abortion?

Saying that "Jesus is King" says nothing about abortion.
People these days.